The judgment established the entitlement of a person with high support needs to salary under disability rights Acts, emphasizing non-discrimination and reservation of posts for persons with disabilities.

JUDGMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral). - By this petition filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the letter dated 14.06.2016 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-5), issued by respondent no.2, sanctioning only extra ordinary leave, while declining the request of the petitioner for payment of salary to him, for the period that he could not attend his duties, on account of permanent physical impairment of 75%; with a further prayer made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner salary and allowances for the entire period from 08.05.2015 to 20.06.2017, in terms of Section 47 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, as 'continued' under "The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016".Notice of motion having been issued in this petition in the year 2017 itself, with various orders passed which are not necessary to be gone into in detail at this stage. However, the order passed on 15.12.2015 is being reproduced as follows:-

"All cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Before going onto the contentions raised by the State, it is first necessary to take on record the opinion given by the Board of Doctors of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, dated 25.06.2020, as was annexed with CM No. 6161-CWP-2020 filed by the petitioner, seeking an early hearing in the petition, which application was allowed on 14.07.2020.

However, the aforesaid medical opinion dated 25.06.2020 was not ordered to be taken on record and therefore, since obviously the adjudication of the case would depend very largely on the medical opinion given by the Board, the said medical opinion is ordered to be taken on record as Annexure P-6 with the accompanying petition.

The said opinion reads as follows:-

"Sh. Kulbir Singh Jakhar has been examined by the Special Medical Board on 25.06.2020. He has been diagnosed as a case of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) disease of heart and suffering from same since 2001. He is severely symptomatic & presently in NYHA Class III. He has undergone Automated Implant able Cardioverter Defibrillator (AICD) implantation for HCM induced life threatening arrhythmias in October 2014. His investigations of ECG, Echocardiography & Cine-recording of AICD has been done. He is physically severely disabled by HCM disease and he is suffering from physical disability of 75% due to HCM disease.

Opinion regarding physical disability:

He is suffering from physical disability of 75% due to HCM disease."

Today, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid opinion of the Board, is actually not covered by the list of illnesses enumerated in in the Schedule to the Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act 1995, nor even in the subsequent Act of 2016.

Clauses (r), (s) and (t) of Section 2 of the Act of 2016 read as follows:-

(r) "person with benchmark disability" means a person with not less than forty per cent of a specified disability where specified disability has not been defined in measurable terms and includes a person with disability where specified disability has been defined in measurable terms, as certified by the certifying authority;

(s) "person with disability" means a person with long terms physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in inter-action with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in social equally with others;

(t) "person with disability having high support needs" means a person with benchmark disability certified under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 58 who needs high support."

She then points to Section 20 of the said Act, which